NOTESTO THE PRECEDING LETTERS.

I had hoped not to be required to say more on the subject discussed in the above Letters; but, during the last week, Mr. Webster has issued, in a pamphlet form, a speech made by him in the Senate on the 17th ult., accompanied by his letter, dated on the same day, to some gentlemen on the Kennebec River. In this letter, Mr. Webster has referred to me again; and I regret exceedingly to say, that he seems to have given himself full license to depart from all the rules of courtesy belonging to a gentleman, and to disobey the obligations of truth belonging to a man.

That I may not be supposed to make any over-statement respecting the character of Mr. Webster’s language towards me, as expressed in this letter, I quote a specimen or two from it.

“A pamphlet has been put into circulation,” says he, referring to the first of the above two letters, “in which it is said that my remark is ‘undertaking to settle by mountains and rivers, and not by the Ten Commandments, the question of human duty,’ ‘Cease to transcribe,’ it adds, ‘upon the statute book what our wisest and best men believed to be the will of God, in regard to our worldly affairs, and the passions which we think appropriate to devils will soon take possession of society.’” He then adds, “One hardly knows which most to contemn, the nonsense or the dishonesty of such commentaries on another’s words. I know no passion more appropriate to devils than the passion for gross misrepresentation and libel,” &c., &c.

The angry and reproachful language, in which Mr. Webster has here indulged himself, releases me from all further obligation to treat him with personal regard. Yet I do not mean to avail myself of this release. Under our present relations, however, I do feel at liberty to use considerable plainness of speech.

1. Let me first refer to a misrepresentation by Mr. Webster of a plain matter of fact. In professing to quote, fromhis 7th of March speech, a passage on which I had made a criticism, he alters the passage so as to evade the criticism, and then condemns me for making it. The original passage in his speech read as follows: “I would not take pains to reäffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to reënact the will of God.” This was the sentiment I criticized. It appears in these words in theNational Intelligencer, in theWashington Union, in theRepublic, in theGlobe, and in the pamphlet edition of his speech, which he dedicated to the people of Massachusetts. But in the Kennebec letter, in order to elude the point of my criticism, he has interpolated a word into the sentence, which changes its whole meaning. Affirming that he quotes himself, he says, “I would not take painsUSELESSLYto reäffirm an ordinance of Nature, or to reënact the will of God.” By foisting in the word which I have underscored, he changes the entire character of the sentiment advanced. As now stated, nobody can dissent from it; for who would announce, in a distinct proposition, that he woulduselesslydo any thing? But, as originally stated, nobody can assent to it. This alteration of his language, after my criticism upon it was made, is not only unjust towards me, but it contains a latent confession that he knew he was wrong, but thought this surreptitious changing of his doctrine to be a less evil than a frank acknowledgment of his error. Had he truly quoted the original false sentiment, the world would have seen that I was right; but, in his dilemma, he falsely interpolated a true sentiment, not only to evade the force of my criticism upon him, but to make occasion for an unfounded imputation against me.

I shall not undertake to define or describe a proceeding like this in words of my own. But I may be permitted, without discourtesy, to use a sentiment advanced by himself, and leave its application to be made by its author. It is in the same connection that Mr. Webster makes the following remark: “I know no passion more appropriate to devils than the passion for gross misrepresentation and libel.” Can any mortal specify a grosser instance of “gross misrepresentation and libel” than when one of the parties to a public discussion has uttered an obnoxious sentiment, and when this sentiment has met with very general reprobation, and when, in the progress of the discussion, the guilty party professes to restatethe case, that he should then expunge the false sentiment he originally advanced, foist a trite and common-place one in its stead, then apply the criticism made on the suppressed sentiment to the forged one, and proceed to condemn his critic for “nonsense” or “dishonesty”? Is it not as palpable a case of alteration, as to change the date of a note of hand in order to take it out of the statute of limitations, or to obliterate the description of the premises in a deed, and put a more valuable estate in its place? This proceeding is worse, if possible, than the former “misrepresentation and libel” of my argument and myself, contained in the Newburyport letter. But the subject is painful, and I leave it.

2. Following up his attack upon me, Mr. Webster proceeds to say:

“In classical times, there was a set of small but rapacious critics, denominatedcaptatores verborum, who snatched and caught at particular expressions; expended their strength on thedisjecta membraof language; birds of rapine which preyed on words and syllables, and gorged themselves with feeding on the garbage of phrases, chopped, dislocated, and torn asunder by themselves, as flesh and limbs are by the claws of unclean birds.”

May I most respectfully ask Mr. Webster on what authority he says there was, “in classical times,” any such “set” of “small but rapacious critics,” as he here speaks of—or exemplifies? In my ignorance, I have always supposed the “captator” of classical times, to be a kind of “genius” the very opposite of what Mr. Webster describes. Horace, Juvenal, and Livy represent him as a selfish, sycophantic gift-seeker, or fortune-hunter; not a twister, torturer, or interpolator, even, of words and phrases. Ifcaptatormeant a cavilling, cynical critic, thencaptatrixshould mean a scold, a vixen, or virago; but its true meaning was “a fawning gossip,” or “mean flatterer.”

No mistake could well be greater than that the oldcaptatores“expended their strength on thedisjecta membraof language,” or “gorged themselves with the garbage of phrases, chopped, dislocated, and torn asunder, by themselves.” On the contrary, they were “gentle as a sucking dove.” The accompanying words descriptive of the “captator” were nottorve,ringi, and so forth; butcollide,blande, orblandicule. There was nothing like the harpy about them,as Mr. Webster seems to suppose, in this remarkable description of his, which is as rhetorically unsavory as it is classically untrue.

So far from there being any “set” of critics, in classic times, denominated and known ascaptatores verborum, I doubt whether even the abstract noun “captatio” occurs half a dozen times, in all the classics, in connection with the genitive of his pretended appellation. He could hardly have made a greater or more ludicrous mistake. It is exceedingly to be regretted, after the numerous instances we have lately had of Mr. Webster’s bad logic, and bad humanity, and bad discoveries of natural law, that he should now offend the classical taste of the country, and bring discredit upon the New England colleges, by his bad Latin. This whole anti-classical paragraph about “disjecta membra,” and “chopping,” and “gorging,” and “uncleanness,” is an unclean conception of his own; not a pure but an impure invention, and seems more epigastric than intellectual in its origin.[12]

3. I will now give a specimen or two of Mr. Webster’s errors in geography, and of his false citation of authorities. It will then be seen that his geographical statements are worthy to be placed side by side with his classical. In the same letter, he says the extent of New Mexico, north and south, on the line of the Rio Grande, “can hardly be less than a thousand miles.” This makes a little more thanfourteendegrees of latitude. Now, as its northern boundary is in 42°, its southern must be as low as 28°. This isfourdegrees below El Paso del Norte. Yet Mr. Webster, on the13th of June last, declared himself in favor of fixing the northern boundary of Texas at or near El Paso, and more than four degrees of latitude north of what he here says is the southern boundary of New Mexico. He also supported that part of the compromise bill which proposes to give Texas, not only these four degrees of latitude, but millions of money also, for taking what, as he now says, belongs to New Mexico and the United States. How can these views stand together?

In his 7th of March speech, Mr. Webster declared it to be a natural impossibility that African slavery could ever exist “in California or New Mexico.” (p. 42.) He now defines the southern boundary of New Mexico. It can hardly be less, says he, than “a thousand miles” from the forty-second degree of north latitude. This places it four degrees south of El Paso. He is in favor of that part of the bill which gives these four degrees to Texas. According to him, therefore, should Texas get possession of these four degrees of what is now New Mexican territory, slavery will exist, as far up as the old southern boundary line of New Mexico, by virtue of the laws of Texas, but beyond this line, although within the bounds of Texas, it will not exist, because forbidden by the “will of God.” Hence the extraordinary spectacle will be exhibited, of the existence of slavery coming plump up to the south side of an imaginary line, by the laws of Texas, while on the north side of the said imaginary line, its existence will be cut square off by the “will of God,” although both sides are within the same political jurisdiction. This will be a miracle, compared with which the supposed miraculous preservation of the Jewish feature and complexion, for two thousand years, will be unworthy to be mentioned. It remains to be seen, however, whether this miracle will be vouchsafed to Mr. Webster, as a proof of the divine favor.

On the 5th of June, Mr. Webster voted against incorporating the “Proviso” into the governments for New Mexico and Utah, because slavery was already prohibited there by “Asiatic scenery” and the law of “physical geography.” On the next day, too, he voted against the following amendment, offered by Mr. Walker: “And that peon servitude is forever abolished and prohibited.” Whether he so voted because this species of slavery, (which is an existing institution at the present time,) was prohibited by “scenery” and “geography,” does not appear.

But on the 17th of June, Mr. Webster, in the Senate, suggested a qualification of his doctrine as laid down on the 7th of March, viz., that “every foot of territory of the United States has a fixed character for slavery.” An uncertainty as to the boundary line between New Mexico and Texas, gave rise to this qualification. “Let me say to gentlemen,” said Mr. Webster, “that if any portion which they or I do not believe to be Texas, should be considered to become Texas, then, so far, that qualification of my remark is applicable.” (Cong. Globe, 31st Cong., 1st session, p. 1239.) That is, if the compromise bill should so establish the boundary line between New Mexico and Texas, as that “any portion [of New Mexico] which they or I [other gentlemen or Mr. Webster,] do not believe to be Texas, should be considered to become Texas,” thenas Texan territory, it might lose its “fixed character,” and become slave territory, notwithstanding the “ordinance of Nature” and the “will of God,” to the contrary. But, strange to say, on this same 17th of June, the Kennebec letter was written, which carries the southern boundary of Mexico, on the east side of the Rio Grande, four degrees below El Paso, and, of course, includes all that region within New Mexico, and therefore within the “ordinance of Nature” and the “will of God!” So that, after all, he acknowledges that the “ordinance of Nature” and the “will of God,” as he expounds them, may be overridden by the laws of Texas;—in which view he is undoubtedly right.

But his citation of authorities is among the most surprising of all his aberrations from fact. He first quotes Major Gaines, who, as he says, “traversed a part of this country during the Mexican war.” By “this country,” I suppose he means New Mexico. If he does not mean New Mexico, then the citation has no relation to the subject. If he does mean New Mexico, then he asserts what is untrue. Major Gaines did not go within four or five hundred miles of New Mexico during the war; and if the quotation from him was designed to create the belief that, in what Major Gaines said, he was speaking of New Mexico, it was as gross an imposition as could well be made.

The next citation is from Colonel Hardin. Two sentences are taken. I transcribe the first with Mr. Webster’s italics.

“The whole country is miserably watered; large districts have no water at all. The streams are small, and at great distances apart.One day we marched on the road from Monclova to Parras,thirty-five miles, without water; a pretty severe day’s march for infantry.”

And what country does this describe?

“From Monclova to Parras, thirty-five miles”! says Colonel Hardin. And where is Monclova? Away down south, in Coahuila, hundreds of miles from any part of New Mexico.

I submit the following notes, one from the colonel of the regiment in which Mr. Gaines was a major; and the other from a major in the regiment of which Mr. Hardin was colonel. Both letters are from gentlemen who are now members of Congress.

House of Representatives, June 27, 1850.Sir; In reply to your note of this date, I state that Major Gaines did not, during the Mexican war, travel through any part of New Mexico. Major Gaines entered Mexico at Camargo, on the Rio Grande; was engaged near Saltillo, until he was captured and taken to the city of Mexico; and thence he returned to the United States by the way of Vera Cruz.I am, sir, very respectfully, &c.,HUMPHREY MARSHALL.P.S. In reply to your verbal inquiry, whether Colonel Hardin was in New Mexico, I state, that Colonel Hardin was attached to General Wool’s command, and passed from San Antonio de Bexar, by the Presidio de Rio Grande, Monclova, and Parras, to Saltillo; so that he did not enter New Mexico.H. M.Hon.H. Mann.

House of Representatives, June 27, 1850.

Sir; In reply to your note of this date, I state that Major Gaines did not, during the Mexican war, travel through any part of New Mexico. Major Gaines entered Mexico at Camargo, on the Rio Grande; was engaged near Saltillo, until he was captured and taken to the city of Mexico; and thence he returned to the United States by the way of Vera Cruz.

I am, sir, very respectfully, &c.,

HUMPHREY MARSHALL.

P.S. In reply to your verbal inquiry, whether Colonel Hardin was in New Mexico, I state, that Colonel Hardin was attached to General Wool’s command, and passed from San Antonio de Bexar, by the Presidio de Rio Grande, Monclova, and Parras, to Saltillo; so that he did not enter New Mexico.

H. M.

Hon.H. Mann.

House of Representatives, June 28, 1850.Hon. H. Mann.Sir; In reply to your note of this date, I have the honor to say, that I was an officer of the first regiment, Illinois volunteers, commanded by Colonel J.J. Hardin, during the Mexican war, and that during the time Colonel Hardin was in command of the regiment he was not in New Mexico. His nearest point to New Mexico was Monclova or Parras, which was several hundred miles distant. In my opinion, Colonel Hardin was never in New Mexico; he certainly was not in that country during the Mexican war.Respectfully,W. A. RICHARDSON.

House of Representatives, June 28, 1850.

Hon. H. Mann.Sir; In reply to your note of this date, I have the honor to say, that I was an officer of the first regiment, Illinois volunteers, commanded by Colonel J.J. Hardin, during the Mexican war, and that during the time Colonel Hardin was in command of the regiment he was not in New Mexico. His nearest point to New Mexico was Monclova or Parras, which was several hundred miles distant. In my opinion, Colonel Hardin was never in New Mexico; he certainly was not in that country during the Mexican war.

Respectfully,W. A. RICHARDSON.

Now what possible excuse can be offered for these misleading citations? What information would be given of the soil of the Genesee valley of New York, by proving the condition of the sands of Cape Cod?

Mr. Webster next quotes, for the second time, the letter of Hugh N. Smith, Esq. This letter, if taken by itself, would render it improbable, in Mr. Smith’s opinion, that slaverywould go into New Mexico; but it by no means proves the physical impossibility of its existence there. But what different language has Mr. Smith since held in his address to his constituents in New Mexico itself? I will quote a few passages from this address to show its general drift and intent.

“Your state, [New Mexico,] is threatened with dismemberment, andwhat is yet more fatal, the introduction of slavery into its bosom.” (p. 1.)“The most formidable part of this combination against you is that which originates in the slave interest. It not only rallies against you the whole slaveholding south, but all the influence of selfish, venal, and ambitious men in the north,looking to speculations in discredited bonds and land jobbing, or to the political honors which the combined vote of the south may promise.” (p. 2.)“The doctrine of the slaveholding states, in regard to their domestic institutions, is non-intervention; but with regard to yours, it isinstant intervention, to set at nought the prohibition of slavery, which you brought with you into the Union,” &c.Ib.“I am myself a native of the section, [Mr. Smith is a Kentuckian,] whose fate I deplore, and if my duty did not require, I would be the last to advert to the malady that preys upon its life.... The schemes of those who would bind you to the destiny of the slave states, render it necessary that your representative should be excluded from the halls of Congress.” (p. 3.)“You are left prostrate, that Texas may dismember and divide New Mexico, and subject her to southern influence; that negro slavery may be introduced into the remnant of territory that may not be appropriated to Texas; and, finally, that the region thus secured to southern policy may become the stock on which to graft new conquests from Mexico.” (p. 4.) [Theseare Mr. Smith’s italics.]“The first step in this process is to supplant the fundamental municipal institutions brought by New Mexico with her into the Union, by a territorial government, which, by omitting the inhibition against slavery in the Congressional act, failing to reserve that contained in the Mexican code, and preventing the people of the territory from legislating upon the subject of slavery, and from reënacting the prohibitory clause, will unquestionably abolish all protections against that institution; and, indeed, more effectual legislation for the extension of slavery into New Mexico could not be enacted.” (p. 5.)“The whole body of southern influence, now that mining is a mania, would combine to pour an immense colony of slaves into New Mexico. The consequence of this would be to level the whole population of New Mexico with the new caste brought into competition; and you, my Mexican fellow-citizens, who till your own soil with your own hands, would be compelled to fly your country, or be degraded from your equality of freemen, forfeiting your hopes of rising to the new elevation promised by your alliance with the great North American republic, and living only to witness the ruin of all that renders life desirable.” (p. 6.)

“Your state, [New Mexico,] is threatened with dismemberment, andwhat is yet more fatal, the introduction of slavery into its bosom.” (p. 1.)

“The most formidable part of this combination against you is that which originates in the slave interest. It not only rallies against you the whole slaveholding south, but all the influence of selfish, venal, and ambitious men in the north,looking to speculations in discredited bonds and land jobbing, or to the political honors which the combined vote of the south may promise.” (p. 2.)

“The doctrine of the slaveholding states, in regard to their domestic institutions, is non-intervention; but with regard to yours, it isinstant intervention, to set at nought the prohibition of slavery, which you brought with you into the Union,” &c.Ib.

“I am myself a native of the section, [Mr. Smith is a Kentuckian,] whose fate I deplore, and if my duty did not require, I would be the last to advert to the malady that preys upon its life.... The schemes of those who would bind you to the destiny of the slave states, render it necessary that your representative should be excluded from the halls of Congress.” (p. 3.)

“You are left prostrate, that Texas may dismember and divide New Mexico, and subject her to southern influence; that negro slavery may be introduced into the remnant of territory that may not be appropriated to Texas; and, finally, that the region thus secured to southern policy may become the stock on which to graft new conquests from Mexico.” (p. 4.) [Theseare Mr. Smith’s italics.]

“The first step in this process is to supplant the fundamental municipal institutions brought by New Mexico with her into the Union, by a territorial government, which, by omitting the inhibition against slavery in the Congressional act, failing to reserve that contained in the Mexican code, and preventing the people of the territory from legislating upon the subject of slavery, and from reënacting the prohibitory clause, will unquestionably abolish all protections against that institution; and, indeed, more effectual legislation for the extension of slavery into New Mexico could not be enacted.” (p. 5.)

“The whole body of southern influence, now that mining is a mania, would combine to pour an immense colony of slaves into New Mexico. The consequence of this would be to level the whole population of New Mexico with the new caste brought into competition; and you, my Mexican fellow-citizens, who till your own soil with your own hands, would be compelled to fly your country, or be degraded from your equality of freemen, forfeiting your hopes of rising to the new elevation promised by your alliance with the great North American republic, and living only to witness the ruin of all that renders life desirable.” (p. 6.)

This is what Mr. Smith says, when he writes home to his own people, who know all about their own country, and its danger of being invaded by slavery.

Now, let the reader suppose himself to have read from Mr. Smith’s address, as much more of the same kind as the above, and then say how far his evidence goes to sustain Mr. Webster’s discovery, that slavery can never go into New Mexico. Mr. Smith’s address has been published for two months; it has been on the tables of members, published, and quoted from in the newspapers, and yet Mr. Webster continues to cite Mr. Smith as a witness in his favor. What influences were used to induce Mr. Smith to withhold, in the letter to Mr. Webster, the facts and views which he has so clearly brought out in the letter to his constituents?

The next and last citation is from an officer at Santa Fe. No name is given. We are informed neither of the character of the author nor of his means of information; and if this authority is as fallacious and deceptive as the preceding, it is a great deal worse than nothing. It would be like the testimony sometimes offered in court, which ruins the cause and dishonors the counsel.

4. In his Kennebec letter, Mr. Webster says, “I have studied the geography of New Mexico diligently, having read all that I could find in print, and inquired of many intelligent persons, who have been in the country, traversed it, and become familiar with it.” He sets forth his knowledge in this confident tone, so that his impressions in favor of thenaturalprohibition of slavery may be more readily received. According to this statement, he must have read the letters of Mr. James S. Calhoun, Indian agent at Santa Fe, communicated to Congress by the President, on the 23d of January last. Speaking of the Navajoes, a tribe of 7,000 Indians, within the limits of what it is proposed to include in New Mexico, Mr. Calhoun says, that it is “not a rare instance for one individual to possess 5,000 to 10,000 sheep, and 400 to 500 head of other stock,” (p. 184;) and that their country “is rich in its valleys, rich in its fields of grain, and rich in its vegetables and peach orchards.” (p. 199.) “We encamped,” says he, “near extensive cornfields, belonging to the Navajoes.” (p. 197.) Their “soil is easy of cultivation, and capable of sustaining nearly as many millions of inhabitants as they havethousands.” (p. 202.) Look at this: A country owned by one tribe capable, according to Mr. Calhoun, of sustaining nearly 7,000,000 inhabitants, and yet, as Mr. Webster avers, inaccessible to slavery, on account of its barrenness!

Speaking of the Indians, (Pueblos,) on the Rio Grande, Mr. Calhoun says, “These people can raise immense quantities of corn and wheat, and have large herds of sheep and goats. The grazing for cattle generally is superior.” (p. 206.) Of the more western Pueblos, he says, they have “an extent of country nearly four hundred miles square”;—more than twenty times as large as Massachusetts;—“they have rich valleys to cultivate, grow quantities of corn and wheat, and raise vast herds of horses, mules, sheep, and goats, all of which may be immensely increased by properly stimulating their industry, and instructing them in the agricultural arts.” (p. 215.)

I might cite much more from the same authority, to the same effect; but I do not refer to Mr. Calhoun so much for the purpose of showing the agricultural capabilities of New Mexico, as of asking why Mr. Webster did not quote from this recent official work, which has been lying on the tables of members for months, instead of quoting descriptions from military officers respecting a country which he well knew they had never seen?

There is good reason to believe that there are wide tracts of fertile land lying between the Sierra de los Mimbres and the Sierra Nevada, on the east and west, and the 32d and 35th degrees of latitude. The waters at the mouth of a river give no doubtful indication respecting the country from which they flow. If the volume be large, we know it must drain an extensive region; for the waters of a great river cannot be supplied from a narrow surface. So if the water be muddy, as is said to be the case with that of the Colorado, it is proof that it courses through a diluvial country. But however this may be, all accounts concur in representing New Mexico to be rich in mines; and mines are the favorite sphere for slavery, as the ocean is for commerce.

In his late speech in the Senate, Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, said, that however it might be with regard to employing slaves in New Mexico for raising crops of corn or cotton, there was still one purpose to which they might be applied,—themost odious of all purposes,—to raising crops from themselves. From this “Southern Hive,” the markets of Texas and Louisiana might be supplied with “vigintial” crops of human beings. It will be incumbent on Mr. Webster to invent some new “physical” law to meet this astute suggestion of his colleague. “Asiatic scenery” will hardly answer his purpose here.

Within the limits of the proposed territory of New Mexico, it is said, on the authority of Humboldt, that that powerful and comparatively civilized people, the Aztecs, once resided. Can any person for a moment believe that the Aztecs ever grew to opulence and power, in any such sterile and desolate region, as Mr. Webster’s “diligent reading” portrays?

But what must satisfy every man whose blindness is not of the soul rather than of the senses, is the fact that the people of New Mexico, in the constitution which they have just framed, have embodied a prohibition of slavery in their fundamental law. Had slavery been forbidden there by any “Asiatic scenery,” or by any “law of physical geography,” who should know it better than they? They have had slavery amongst them heretofore, and therefore they know it can invade them again, and therefore they forbid it; and in the choice of senators to Congress under the new organization, should any candidate put forward the vagary, the phantasm, the fatuity, that slaverycannotexist among them, they would doubtless deem him a less fit subject for the Senate of the United States than for sanitary treatment.

How stands the evidence, then, on the question, whether “California and New Mexico,” from their geology, their geography, or their Asiatic scenery, are inaccessible or not, to the invasion of slavery? It is well known that the war with Mexico was provoked, and violently precipitated upon the country, in order to extend the domain and the power of slavery. In negotiating for the cession of California and New Mexico, the Mexican commissioners strove to introduce a prohibition against slavery into the treaty. This demonstrates that they thought slavery could exist there. Our minister declared that he would assent to no such stipulation, though they would cover all the land a foot thick with gold. This shows the tenacity with which Mr. Polk’s administration, and all its southern friends, adhered to their original purpose of obtainingnew territory for slavery. In view of this, the House of Representatives again and again voted to apply the proviso to whatever territory should be obtained. When the treaty was ratified, many of the leading senators voted against the clause for acquisition, foreseeing the present controversy, and hoping to avert it. Even after the treaty was ratified, leading southern Whigs in the House voted against paying the first instalment under it, still clinging to the hope that the territory might be restored to Mexico, and this cause of dissension withdrawn. During all this period, fourteen of the northern legislatures, many of them again and again, voted that the proviso should be applied. The present six months’ contest, in the Senate and House, between the north and the south, is conducted solely on the conviction that slaverymayexist in the territories; and that it will or will not exist there, according as the law allows or forbids it. Otherwise it would be the most nonsensical and nugatory discussion ever engaged in out of a lunatic asylum. Once make it as clear as any law of physical nature, that slavery can never transgress the bounds of the new territories, and there is not a man so demented that he would any longer contend either for the proviso, or against it. Mr. Webster was always of the same opinion, and has declared it a hundred times. In his Marshfield speech, September 1, 1848, he said, “He [General Cass] will surely have the Senate, and with the patronage of the government, with every interest that he, as a northern man, can bring to bear, coöperating with every interest that the south can bring to bear, we cry safety before we are out of the woods,if we feel that there is no danger[of slavery]as to these new territories.” Up to the 7th of March, 1850, then, when he abandoned all the doctrines and sentiments he had ever before advocated on this subject, and when he incurred the public, hearty approval and encomiums of Mr. Calhoun, by his moral agility in springing, at one leap, from Massachusetts to South Carolina;—until this time, Mr. Webster had always held, that slavery would invade the new territories if not barred out of them by positive law. And what would be still more remarkable, if the doctrines of the 7th of March speech had the least shadow of soundness in them, is, that they have now been before the public for more than four months, and, so far as I know, not a single southern man has been converted by them. Arenot Mr. Benton, Mr. Mason, Colonel Davis, and thousands of others, individually, as good judges, or as good witnesses, as he is? Since the speech, the people of New Mexico have prohibited slavery in their constitution, because they knew it to be possible among them. Before the speech, California did the same, and for the same reason. The Nashville convention has just resolved, “That California is peculiarly adapted for slave labor, and that if the tenure of slave property was by recognition of this kind secured in that part of the country south of 36° 30´, it would in a short time form one or more slaveholding states, to swell the number and power of those already in existence.” Even those who seek to apologize for Mr. Webster, avow, at the same time, their disbelief in his doctrine. Such is the evidence, on the one side and on the other, as to the possibility or impossibility of slavery in the territories. Mr. Webster is against the whole world, and the whole world is against him, and this, too, on a question already settled by history and experience. He is just as much to be believed, as a man who looks up into the clear midnight sky, and denies the existence of the heavenly host, while all the stars of the firmament are shining down into his eyes.

To increase the overwhelming proof against Mr. Webster, I add the following:—

House of Representatives, June 1, 1850.Hon. S. R. Thurston, Delegate from Oregon.Dear Sir; In a speech delivered by you, in the House of Representatives, in March last, I understood you to say that you had been in the valley of the Great Salt Lake, and that you were acquainted, from personal observation, with a large part of the territory of California. Will you be so good as to give me your opinion, and the reasons for entertaining it, of the probability or improbability of the introduction of slave labor into any part of the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico; provided such introduction be not prohibited by law.I wish to obtain your opinion in regard to other kinds of labor, as well as agricultural; because, as it seems to me, a most unwarrantable, if not a most disingenuous attempt has been made, to lead the public to believe that no form of slave labor will ever be introduced there, because, possibly, or probably, it may not be introduced for agricultural purposes.A reply at your earliest convenience will much obligeYours, very truly,HORACE MANN.

House of Representatives, June 1, 1850.

Hon. S. R. Thurston, Delegate from Oregon.

Dear Sir; In a speech delivered by you, in the House of Representatives, in March last, I understood you to say that you had been in the valley of the Great Salt Lake, and that you were acquainted, from personal observation, with a large part of the territory of California. Will you be so good as to give me your opinion, and the reasons for entertaining it, of the probability or improbability of the introduction of slave labor into any part of the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico; provided such introduction be not prohibited by law.

I wish to obtain your opinion in regard to other kinds of labor, as well as agricultural; because, as it seems to me, a most unwarrantable, if not a most disingenuous attempt has been made, to lead the public to believe that no form of slave labor will ever be introduced there, because, possibly, or probably, it may not be introduced for agricultural purposes.

A reply at your earliest convenience will much oblige

Yours, very truly,HORACE MANN.

Washington, June 10, 1850.Hon. Horace Mann;I received a note from you some days ago, making certain inquiries, but which, up to this time, I have been unable to answer. I desire to take no part in the question now dividing the country; but as you have asked my judgment upon a matter which appears to be a disputed point, I cannot, consistently with the law of courtesy, refuse you an answer. That answer will be in conformity with what I have frequently said, heretofore, in private conversation with gentlemen on this subject.The point of inquiry seems to be, whether slave labor could be profitably employed in Oregon, California, Utah, and New Mexico. If the nature of the climate and resources of these countries are such as to furnish a profitable market for slave labor, it appears to be conceded, on all sides, that it would be introduced, if left free to seek profitable investment, like other capital. The whole point at issue, then, is dependent, as it is conceived, upon the determination of the first point of inquiry. Hence, to that point, only, it is necessary for me to confine my answer.I need not remind you of the law regulating the investment of capital. It will always go where, under all circumstances, it will yield the greatest return to the owner. Upon this principle I am very clear, that slave labor, if unrestricted, could be employed in Oregon, with at least double the profit to the owner of the slave that it now yields in any state of the Union. I am uninformed as to the usual price of slave labor in the states, but the price paid to Indians in Oregon during the past year, for labor, has ranged from two to three dollars per day. Domestic negro servants, whether male or female, who understand the business of housework, would command,readily, five or six hundred dollars a year. I recollect well that there was a mulatto man on board the vessel in which I took passage from Oregon to San Francisco, who was paidone hundred and eightydollars per month for his services as cook. I will not stop to particularize further, in regard to the inducements Oregon would offer to unrestricted slave labor, but will simply add, that a very large number of slaves might now be employed in Oregon at annual wages sufficiently large to purchase their freedom. I think, therefore, that the point is settled so far as Oregon is concerned, and that slave labor, if it had been left free to seek profitable employment, would readily find its way to that territory.As to California, I am equally clear. California will always be a mining country, and wages will range high. At present, slave labor in California would be more profitable than in Oregon. And I have always been of the opinion, that wherever there is a mining country, if not in a climate uncongenial to slave labor, that species of labor would be profitable. That it would be in the California mines, is evident. A good able-bodied slave would have commanded, in California, during the past year, from eight to ten hundred dollars per annum. When it is recollected that one hundred dollars per annum, upon an average, is considered a good compensation for their labor in the Southern States, it is idle, in my judgment, to contend that slaves would not be carried to the California market, if protected by law.The greatest impediment which white labor has to encounter in the mines, is the intensity of the heat, and the prevalence of bilious disease. The one is almost insufferable, while the other is pestilential. Against both of these the negro is almost proof. Now, while white labor is so high, it is evident that no one can hire a white laborer, except at a rate that would consume his profit. Not so with negro labor. That species of labor might be obtained for half the amount which you would have to pay for white labor. The result would be a profit alike to the hirer and seller of slave labor. There is no doubt, in my judgment, that almost any number of slaves might be hired out in California, were the whites willing to allow it, at from eight to ten hundred dollars a year. This is pay so much above what their services command in the states, as to satisfy any one, that could this species of service be protected in California, it would rush to the Pacific in almost any quantity.Let us next turn our attention to Utah and New Mexico. I have no doubt, from what knowledge I have of those countries, that they will turn out to be filled with the richest mines. I clip the following from a recent paper, containing the news from Texas and Chihuahua:—“Mr. James was informed, by Major Neighbours and Mr. Lee Vining, that they had been shown by Major Stein, some gold washed out by his troops, on the Gila River, in a short excursion to that stream.“It is reported, that, at the copper mines above El Paso, there are about one hundred tons of pure copper lying upon the ground. This had been got out by Mexicans, and abandoned when attacked by Indians.“There are at El Paso, in the hands of different persons, several large amounts of silver ore, taken from the mines in that neighborhood. With guaranties of titles to lands, and protection from Indians, only a short time would elapse before all these mines would be well worked, and we would have large quantities of metal seeking a market through this place.”And if you consult Fremont’s map, printed by order of the Senate in 1848, you will find, near the source of one of the branches of the Gila River, “copper and gold mines” laid down. And if I am not greatly mistaken, it will turn out that the Mormons are in possession of the richest kind of mines, east of the Sierra Nevada. It is known, too, that silver and copper mines have, for many years, been worked in New Mexico; and I am informed by Hugh N. Smith, Esq., that there are, in that territory, gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc mines of the richest quality, and that the reason why they have not latterly been worked more extensively is, that it is prevented by the incursions of the Indians. He is of the opinion, and he is borne out by what history we can get on the subject, that when these mines shall come to be explored, their wealth will turn out to be enormous. When you have once cast your eye over the country lying west of the Rocky Mountains, and east of the Sierra Nevada, and are informed of the peculiarity of the gold bearing region, you at once become convinced that the United States is in possession of mineral wealth so vast, that ages will not be able to measure its extent. And when these mines shall begin to be developed, and their unquestionable richness known, population will set that way, attended with the usual consequences,high prices, and a demand for labor. If slave labor is like other capital, if it will go where it is best paid, then we have a right to say it will seek these mines, and become a part of the producing capital of the country where those mines are located. That these whole regions are filled with rich mines, is little less than certain, and that they can be profitably worked by slave labor is sure. Hence, were I a southern man, and my property invested in slaves, I should consider the markets of New Mexico, Utah, and California, for slave labor, worthy of an honorable contest to secure.I am, sir, with due consideration, yours, truly,SAMUEL R. THURSTON.

Washington, June 10, 1850.

Hon. Horace Mann;

I received a note from you some days ago, making certain inquiries, but which, up to this time, I have been unable to answer. I desire to take no part in the question now dividing the country; but as you have asked my judgment upon a matter which appears to be a disputed point, I cannot, consistently with the law of courtesy, refuse you an answer. That answer will be in conformity with what I have frequently said, heretofore, in private conversation with gentlemen on this subject.

The point of inquiry seems to be, whether slave labor could be profitably employed in Oregon, California, Utah, and New Mexico. If the nature of the climate and resources of these countries are such as to furnish a profitable market for slave labor, it appears to be conceded, on all sides, that it would be introduced, if left free to seek profitable investment, like other capital. The whole point at issue, then, is dependent, as it is conceived, upon the determination of the first point of inquiry. Hence, to that point, only, it is necessary for me to confine my answer.

I need not remind you of the law regulating the investment of capital. It will always go where, under all circumstances, it will yield the greatest return to the owner. Upon this principle I am very clear, that slave labor, if unrestricted, could be employed in Oregon, with at least double the profit to the owner of the slave that it now yields in any state of the Union. I am uninformed as to the usual price of slave labor in the states, but the price paid to Indians in Oregon during the past year, for labor, has ranged from two to three dollars per day. Domestic negro servants, whether male or female, who understand the business of housework, would command,readily, five or six hundred dollars a year. I recollect well that there was a mulatto man on board the vessel in which I took passage from Oregon to San Francisco, who was paidone hundred and eightydollars per month for his services as cook. I will not stop to particularize further, in regard to the inducements Oregon would offer to unrestricted slave labor, but will simply add, that a very large number of slaves might now be employed in Oregon at annual wages sufficiently large to purchase their freedom. I think, therefore, that the point is settled so far as Oregon is concerned, and that slave labor, if it had been left free to seek profitable employment, would readily find its way to that territory.

As to California, I am equally clear. California will always be a mining country, and wages will range high. At present, slave labor in California would be more profitable than in Oregon. And I have always been of the opinion, that wherever there is a mining country, if not in a climate uncongenial to slave labor, that species of labor would be profitable. That it would be in the California mines, is evident. A good able-bodied slave would have commanded, in California, during the past year, from eight to ten hundred dollars per annum. When it is recollected that one hundred dollars per annum, upon an average, is considered a good compensation for their labor in the Southern States, it is idle, in my judgment, to contend that slaves would not be carried to the California market, if protected by law.

The greatest impediment which white labor has to encounter in the mines, is the intensity of the heat, and the prevalence of bilious disease. The one is almost insufferable, while the other is pestilential. Against both of these the negro is almost proof. Now, while white labor is so high, it is evident that no one can hire a white laborer, except at a rate that would consume his profit. Not so with negro labor. That species of labor might be obtained for half the amount which you would have to pay for white labor. The result would be a profit alike to the hirer and seller of slave labor. There is no doubt, in my judgment, that almost any number of slaves might be hired out in California, were the whites willing to allow it, at from eight to ten hundred dollars a year. This is pay so much above what their services command in the states, as to satisfy any one, that could this species of service be protected in California, it would rush to the Pacific in almost any quantity.

Let us next turn our attention to Utah and New Mexico. I have no doubt, from what knowledge I have of those countries, that they will turn out to be filled with the richest mines. I clip the following from a recent paper, containing the news from Texas and Chihuahua:—

“Mr. James was informed, by Major Neighbours and Mr. Lee Vining, that they had been shown by Major Stein, some gold washed out by his troops, on the Gila River, in a short excursion to that stream.“It is reported, that, at the copper mines above El Paso, there are about one hundred tons of pure copper lying upon the ground. This had been got out by Mexicans, and abandoned when attacked by Indians.“There are at El Paso, in the hands of different persons, several large amounts of silver ore, taken from the mines in that neighborhood. With guaranties of titles to lands, and protection from Indians, only a short time would elapse before all these mines would be well worked, and we would have large quantities of metal seeking a market through this place.”

“Mr. James was informed, by Major Neighbours and Mr. Lee Vining, that they had been shown by Major Stein, some gold washed out by his troops, on the Gila River, in a short excursion to that stream.

“It is reported, that, at the copper mines above El Paso, there are about one hundred tons of pure copper lying upon the ground. This had been got out by Mexicans, and abandoned when attacked by Indians.

“There are at El Paso, in the hands of different persons, several large amounts of silver ore, taken from the mines in that neighborhood. With guaranties of titles to lands, and protection from Indians, only a short time would elapse before all these mines would be well worked, and we would have large quantities of metal seeking a market through this place.”

And if you consult Fremont’s map, printed by order of the Senate in 1848, you will find, near the source of one of the branches of the Gila River, “copper and gold mines” laid down. And if I am not greatly mistaken, it will turn out that the Mormons are in possession of the richest kind of mines, east of the Sierra Nevada. It is known, too, that silver and copper mines have, for many years, been worked in New Mexico; and I am informed by Hugh N. Smith, Esq., that there are, in that territory, gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc mines of the richest quality, and that the reason why they have not latterly been worked more extensively is, that it is prevented by the incursions of the Indians. He is of the opinion, and he is borne out by what history we can get on the subject, that when these mines shall come to be explored, their wealth will turn out to be enormous. When you have once cast your eye over the country lying west of the Rocky Mountains, and east of the Sierra Nevada, and are informed of the peculiarity of the gold bearing region, you at once become convinced that the United States is in possession of mineral wealth so vast, that ages will not be able to measure its extent. And when these mines shall begin to be developed, and their unquestionable richness known, population will set that way, attended with the usual consequences,high prices, and a demand for labor. If slave labor is like other capital, if it will go where it is best paid, then we have a right to say it will seek these mines, and become a part of the producing capital of the country where those mines are located. That these whole regions are filled with rich mines, is little less than certain, and that they can be profitably worked by slave labor is sure. Hence, were I a southern man, and my property invested in slaves, I should consider the markets of New Mexico, Utah, and California, for slave labor, worthy of an honorable contest to secure.

I am, sir, with due consideration, yours, truly,SAMUEL R. THURSTON.

5. The Kennebec letter has another most extraordinary and discreditable passage. It is near the close. Mr. Webster quotes from a speech delivered by him in the Senate, March 23, 1848, says it was published in newspapers and circulated in pamphlet form, and that that speech contained the same doctrines in regard to the “legal construction and effect of the resolutions” for admitting Texas, as are contained in the speech of the 7th of March. He says nobody complained then, and he wonders that any body should complain now.

It is very remarkable that such a man as Mr. Webster should furnish, in the very quotation which he offers, the means of utterly confuting the assertion which he makes. I suppose this can be accounted for only on the ground, that he now occupies a position so antagonistic to that which he has abandoned that he can hardly refer to his former views without self-impeachment and self-conviction. Let passages from the two speeches be placed side by side, to show, not their identity, but their utter irreconcilability.

March 23, 1848.[A passage quoted by himself.]“It shall bein the powerof Congress hereafter to makefourother new states out of Texan territory.”March 7, 1850.“I wish it to be distinctly understood, to-day, that, according to my view of the matter, this governmentis solemnly pledged by law and contractto create new states out of Texas,” &c. (p. 42.)

March 23, 1848.[A passage quoted by himself.]

“It shall bein the powerof Congress hereafter to makefourother new states out of Texan territory.”

March 7, 1850.

“I wish it to be distinctly understood, to-day, that, according to my view of the matter, this governmentis solemnly pledged by law and contractto create new states out of Texas,” &c. (p. 42.)

The first quotation only asserts a “power” in Congress to create new states; the last affirms an obligation, “by law and contract,” to do so. How could Mr. Webster have expected that this broad distinction betweenpowerandduty, betweenoptionandobligation, could escape the attention of his readers?

But there is another discrepancy or contradiction still more remarkable:

March 23, 1848.“It shall be in the power of Congress hereafter to makefourother new states out of Texan territory.”March 7, 1850.“——the guaranty is, that new states shall be made out of it, and that such states as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying south of 36° 30´, may come in as slave states to the number offour, in addition to the state then in existence.” (p. 29.)

March 23, 1848.

“It shall be in the power of Congress hereafter to makefourother new states out of Texan territory.”

March 7, 1850.

“——the guaranty is, that new states shall be made out of it, and that such states as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying south of 36° 30´, may come in as slave states to the number offour, in addition to the state then in existence.” (p. 29.)

The first speech speaks of thepowerof Congress, but the last of theobligationof Congress, to admit new states out of Texan territory. The first speaks of “four other new states;” but the last of the “guaranty” to admit “SLAVEstates to the number of four.” Yet the first speech is cited, to men who can read and write, as identical “in legal construction and effect” with the last. The motto under which Danton attempted to carry himself through his bloody career, was: “L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.” “Audacity, audacity, always audacity.”

But what else did Mr. Webster say, in his speech of the 23d of March, 1848? Referring to the debate which took place in December, 1845, on the final act for admitting Texas, Mr. Webster said: “And I added, that while I held, with as much faithfulness as any citizen of the country, to all the original arrangements and compromises of the constitution under which we live, I never could, and I never should, bring myself to be in favor of the admission of any states into the Union as slaveholding states.”[13]This is what Mr. Webster reports himself to have said when the final vote on the admission of Texas was immediately to be taken, and when he commenced his speech by saying, “I am quite aware, Mr. President, that the resolution will pass,”—meaning the resolution for the admission of Texas. Mr. Webster’s “never could and never should” covered the exact case of the then contemplated future slaveholding states to be formed out of Texas. While in the broadness of its terms it embraced all slaveholding states, whensoever, or whencesoever they might come, it had special and pointed application to any slave state to be thereafter formed out of Texan territory.

In the same speech of December 22, 1845, Mr. Webster spoke as follows:—

“It may be said that according to the provisions of the constitution, new states are to be admitted on the same footing as the old states. It may be so; but it does not follow at all from that provision that every territory or portion of country may at pleasure establish slavery, and then say we will become a portion of the Union; and will bring with us the principles which we may have thus adopted, and must be received on the same footing as the old states. It will always be a question whether the old states have not a right, (and I think they have the clearest right,) to require that the state coming into the Union should come in upon an equality; and, if the existence of slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the state proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by abolishing slavery, or take the alternative of being excluded.”

He also said, in the same speech, “I agree with the unanimous opinion of the legislature of Massachusetts.”

And what was this “unanimous opinion of the legislature of Massachusetts”? Among many other things equally decisive, the Massachusetts legislature, on the 26th of March, 1845,—and, of course, long after the annexation resolutions had been passed,—declared as follows:—

“And whereas the consent of the executive and legislative departments of the government of the United States has been given, by a resolution passed on the 27th of February last, to the adoption of preliminary measures to accomplish this nefarious project, [the admission of Texas, with the stipulation to admit four more states out of its territory;] therefore, be it“Resolved, That Massachusetts hereby refuses to acknowledge the act of the government of the United States, authorizing the admission of Texas, as a legal act, in any way binding her from using her utmost exertions, in coöperation with other states, by every lawful and constitutional measure, to annul its conditions, and defeat its accomplishment.“Resolved, That no territory hereafter applying to be admitted to the Union, as a state, should be admitted without a condition that domestic slavery should be utterly extinguished within its borders, and Massachusetts denies the validity of any compromise whatsoever, that may have been, or that may hereafter be, entered into by persons in the government of the Union, intended to preclude the future application of such a condition by the people, acting through their representatives in the Congress of the United States.”

“Resolved, That Massachusetts hereby refuses to acknowledge the act of the government of the United States, authorizing the admission of Texas, as a legal act, in any way binding her from using her utmost exertions, in coöperation with other states, by every lawful and constitutional measure, to annul its conditions, and defeat its accomplishment.

“Resolved, That no territory hereafter applying to be admitted to the Union, as a state, should be admitted without a condition that domestic slavery should be utterly extinguished within its borders, and Massachusetts denies the validity of any compromise whatsoever, that may have been, or that may hereafter be, entered into by persons in the government of the Union, intended to preclude the future application of such a condition by the people, acting through their representatives in the Congress of the United States.”

Such were the opinions which Mr. Webster then openly expressed, and such the resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts, which he fully indorsed. Yet he now professesto wonder that any body can see any difference between the doctrine of those speeches and resolutions, and those of his speech delivered on the 7th of March.[14]

6. A reference to a few other misstatements of facts will close my remarks on this subject.

Mr. Webster says that, previous to writing his Newburyport letter, he made “diligent inquiry,” of members of Congress from New England, to ascertain how many arrests of fugitive slaves had been made in their time; and he adds, “the resultof all I can learn is this: No seizure of an alleged slave has ever been made in Maine.”

Now, two such cases have happened in the State of Maine. One took place in the eastern part of the state, about 1835 or ’36. The other happened at or near Thomaston, a little later. In this latter case, the fugitive came to Maine in a Thomaston vessel, whose master was afterwards demanded as a fugitive from justice. This demand gave rise to a prolonged correspondence, I think, with no less than three governors of Maine. This correspondence was extensively circulated through the newspapers, or referred to by them, and it would seem hardly possible that Mr. Webster should not have seen it. Since the Newburyport letter was published, this misstatement of fact has been noticed in the Maine newspapers, yet no retraction is made. The misstatement is allowed to be spread over the whole country, uncorrected by its author. Mr. Webster then adds, “No seizure of an alleged fugitive slave has ever been made in Vermont.” Tradition, and, as I believe, authentic history, contradict Mr. Webster here. It is said by “members of Congress” from Vermont, that an alleged fugitive was carried before Judge Harrington of Vermont, in 1807, and on his being asked what evidence would satisfy him that the person was a slave, he replied, “A bill of sale from Almighty God.”

But even if these statements of Mr. Webster, with regard to the New England States, were all true, it would avail him nothing; for, in the eye of patriotism, it matters not where such seizures are made. I refer to it only to show that Mr. Webster is not to be relied upon in these matters, either for the accuracy of his original positions, or for a retraction of them, when their error is pointed out by the public press. I wish not to be understood,on this particular point, as imputing to Mr. Webster an intentional misstatement; because he accompanied his original statement with a salvo. He confessed,—and he is entitled to the full benefit of the confession,—that his information might not be “entirely accurate,” though he supposed it not to be “materially erroneous.” It is “materially erroneous;” and though one error has been exposed in the Maine papers, he does not rectify it. Possibly he does not know it.

While holding Massachusetts up to reproach for “growingfervid on Pennsylvania wrongs,” Mr. Webster draws succor and encouragement from the Society of Friends, and especially from the Friends of Pennsylvania. He says that they remain “of sound and disposing minds and memories;” and he contrasts their wisdom and composure with the “vehement and empty declarations, the wild and fantastic conduct of both men and women which have so long disturbed and so much disgraced the commonwealth” of Massachusetts. He then adds, “I am misled by authority which ought not to mislead, if it be not true, that that great body, [of Friends,] approves the sentiments to which I gave utterance on the floor of the Senate.” I will now show that this alleged approval by the Friends, though worthy of any price but truth, was too dearly bought.

It is well known that the Friends are divided into two great denominations. Each has its periodical, one now in its eighth, the other in its fourth year. In the numbers published since the appearance of the Newburyport letter, both these periodicals do not “approve,” but repudiate and denounce the sentiments to which Mr. Webster gave utterance “on the floor of the Senate.”

TheFriend’s Intelligencerdeals at length with Mr. Webster’s “sentiments” on the “Fugitive Slave Bill;” on the legislation of the north for the protection of its own citizens; on his pseudo discoveries in “physical geography;” and on the “legal construction and effect” of the Texas resolutions; and it condemns them all.

TheFriend’s Reviewdissents not less positively from Mr. Webster’s positions; and both call him severely to account for the defamation of themselves, which his letter implies.

On his “sentiments” respecting fugitive slaves, the “Review” observes that they have yet to learn “that that part of his speech was approved by any member or professor of the society.”

I wish I had space to quote from these able articles, but must forbear.

John G. Whittier, Esq., speaking for the Quakers of New England, gives “a peremptory denial” to Mr. Webster’s statement. I quote the following paragraph from him:—

Back to Index Next